2015: The Back To The Future Season

[Eli]

To be honest, I'm kind of surprised Eli hasn't pointed this out already.

Run differential on its own has a bit of noise at this point in the season, except at the extreme ends of the scale (i.e., we can pretty safely assume the Cardinals are very good and the Phillies suck). It may be a decent indicator of how well a team has played but doesn't have much predictive value.

If they can get healthy and add some talent at weak spots (Zobrist and Papelbon, please), they're as in-this as just about anyone right now.

[SKO]

To be honest, I'm kind of surprised Eli hasn't pointed this out already.

Run differential on its own has a bit of noise at this point in the season, except at the extreme ends of the scale (i.e., we can pretty safely assume the Cardinals are very good and the Phillies suck). It may be a decent indicator of how well a team has played but doesn't have much predictive value.

If they can get healthy and add some talent at weak spots (Zobrist and Papelbon, please), they're as in-this as just about anyone right now.

The Cubs have played an obscene number of close and one run games. They've only really had one laugher I can remember when Milwaukee beat them 12-4. Just take that one game alone out of the equation because it's the only truly non-competitive game I can remember and their run differential swings from -1 to +7.

[Tonker]

To be honest, I'm kind of surprised Eli hasn't pointed this out already.

Run differential on its own has a bit of noise at this point in the season, except at the extreme ends of the scale (i.e., we can pretty safely assume the Cardinals are very good and the Phillies suck). It may be a decent indicator of how well a team has played but doesn't have much predictive value.

If they can get healthy and add some talent at weak spots (Zobrist and Papelbon, please), they're as in-this as just about anyone right now.

The Cubs have played an obscene number of close and one run games. They've only really had one laugher I can remember when Milwaukee beat them 12-4. Just take that one game alone out of the equation because it's the only truly non-competitive game I can remember and their run differential swings from -1 to +7.

The Cubs have only played five games (out of 55) so far this year which were decided by more than four runs.  I don't remember a stretch like this before.  It's fucking ridiculous, and not a little exhausting.

[World's #1 Astros Fan]

To be honest, I'm kind of surprised Eli hasn't pointed this out already.

Run differential on its own has a bit of noise at this point in the season, except at the extreme ends of the scale (i.e., we can pretty safely assume the Cardinals are very good and the Phillies suck). It may be a decent indicator of how well a team has played but doesn't have much predictive value.

If they can get healthy and add some talent at weak spots (Zobrist and Papelbon, please), they're as in-this as just about anyone right now.

The Cubs have played an obscene number of close and one run games. They've only really had one laugher I can remember when Milwaukee beat them 12-4. Just take that one game alone out of the equation because it's the only truly non-competitive game I can remember and their run differential swings from -1 to +7.

The Cubs have only played five games (out of 55) so far this year which were decided by more than four runs.  I don't remember a stretch like this before.  It's fucking ridiculous, and not a little exhausting.

Off the top of my head, I'd say the 2001 Cubs played a lot of close games early on (and beyond)....now that team was definitely out over their skis (Sammy and a bunch of crap on offense), but I don't think this one is.

[Tonker]

To be honest, I'm kind of surprised Eli hasn't pointed this out already.

Run differential on its own has a bit of noise at this point in the season, except at the extreme ends of the scale (i.e., we can pretty safely assume the Cardinals are very good and the Phillies suck). It may be a decent indicator of how well a team has played but doesn't have much predictive value.

If they can get healthy and add some talent at weak spots (Zobrist and Papelbon, please), they're as in-this as just about anyone right now.

The Cubs have played an obscene number of close and one run games. They've only really had one laugher I can remember when Milwaukee beat them 12-4. Just take that one game alone out of the equation because it's the only truly non-competitive game I can remember and their run differential swings from -1 to +7.

The Cubs have only played five games (out of 55) so far this year which were decided by more than four runs.  I don't remember a stretch like this before.  It's fucking ridiculous, and not a little exhausting.

Off the top of my head, I'd say the 2001 Cubs played a lot of close games early on (and beyond)....now that team was definitely out over their skis (Sammy and a bunch of crap on offense), but I don't think this one is.

Despite what I said about their run differential, I don't at all get the feeling that the 2015 Cubs are flying by the seat of their pants - indeed, there have been definitely a few games that they did enough to earn, and then coughed up.  I don't really know what my point is.  I guess I'm just trying not to get too carried away.

[World's #1 Astros Fan]

To be honest, I'm kind of surprised Eli hasn't pointed this out already.

Run differential on its own has a bit of noise at this point in the season, except at the extreme ends of the scale (i.e., we can pretty safely assume the Cardinals are very good and the Phillies suck). It may be a decent indicator of how well a team has played but doesn't have much predictive value.

If they can get healthy and add some talent at weak spots (Zobrist and Papelbon, please), they're as in-this as just about anyone right now.

The Cubs have played an obscene number of close and one run games. They've only really had one laugher I can remember when Milwaukee beat them 12-4. Just take that one game alone out of the equation because it's the only truly non-competitive game I can remember and their run differential swings from -1 to +7.

The Cubs have only played five games (out of 55) so far this year which were decided by more than four runs.  I don't remember a stretch like this before.  It's fucking ridiculous, and not a little exhausting.

Off the top of my head, I'd say the 2001 Cubs played a lot of close games early on (and beyond)....now that team was definitely out over their skis (Sammy and a bunch of crap on offense), but I don't think this one is.

Despite what I said about their run differential, I don't at all get the feeling that the 2015 Cubs are flying by the seat of their pants - indeed, there have been definitely a few games that they did enough to earn, and then coughed up.  I don't really know what my point is.  I guess I'm just trying not to get too carried away.

Too late.  You're on the record as dooming the Cubs, you're out.  Have fun at US Cellular this summer.

And I looked it up--the '01 Cubs had 14 games decided by 5 or more runs by Game 55 (and none of the first 15 games of the year..the first 4 were 1-run games that year in fact). 

[Tonker]

To be honest, I'm kind of surprised Eli hasn't pointed this out already.

Run differential on its own has a bit of noise at this point in the season, except at the extreme ends of the scale (i.e., we can pretty safely assume the Cardinals are very good and the Phillies suck). It may be a decent indicator of how well a team has played but doesn't have much predictive value.

If they can get healthy and add some talent at weak spots (Zobrist and Papelbon, please), they're as in-this as just about anyone right now.

The Cubs have played an obscene number of close and one run games. They've only really had one laugher I can remember when Milwaukee beat them 12-4. Just take that one game alone out of the equation because it's the only truly non-competitive game I can remember and their run differential swings from -1 to +7.

The Cubs have only played five games (out of 55) so far this year which were decided by more than four runs.  I don't remember a stretch like this before.  It's fucking ridiculous, and not a little exhausting.

Off the top of my head, I'd say the 2001 Cubs played a lot of close games early on (and beyond)....now that team was definitely out over their skis (Sammy and a bunch of crap on offense), but I don't think this one is.

Despite what I said about their run differential, I don't at all get the feeling that the 2015 Cubs are flying by the seat of their pants - indeed, there have been definitely a few games that they did enough to earn, and then coughed up.  I don't really know what my point is.  I guess I'm just trying not to get too carried away.

Too late.  You're on the record as dooming the Cubs, you're out.  Have fun at US Cellular this summer.

And I looked it up--the '01 Cubs had 14 games decided by 5 or more runs by Game 55 (and none of the first 15 games of the year..the first 4 were 1-run games that year in fact). 

Au contraire: I'm trying very hard not to doom the Cubs by jinxing them with joyful positive.  If only one or two other people around here would take a similarly conservative approach to their rooting, eh?

[World's #1 Astros Fan]

To be honest, I'm kind of surprised Eli hasn't pointed this out already.

Run differential on its own has a bit of noise at this point in the season, except at the extreme ends of the scale (i.e., we can pretty safely assume the Cardinals are very good and the Phillies suck). It may be a decent indicator of how well a team has played but doesn't have much predictive value.

If they can get healthy and add some talent at weak spots (Zobrist and Papelbon, please), they're as in-this as just about anyone right now.

The Cubs have played an obscene number of close and one run games. They've only really had one laugher I can remember when Milwaukee beat them 12-4. Just take that one game alone out of the equation because it's the only truly non-competitive game I can remember and their run differential swings from -1 to +7.

The Cubs have only played five games (out of 55) so far this year which were decided by more than four runs.  I don't remember a stretch like this before.  It's fucking ridiculous, and not a little exhausting.

Off the top of my head, I'd say the 2001 Cubs played a lot of close games early on (and beyond)....now that team was definitely out over their skis (Sammy and a bunch of crap on offense), but I don't think this one is.

Despite what I said about their run differential, I don't at all get the feeling that the 2015 Cubs are flying by the seat of their pants - indeed, there have been definitely a few games that they did enough to earn, and then coughed up.  I don't really know what my point is.  I guess I'm just trying not to get too carried away.

Too late.  You're on the record as dooming the Cubs, you're out.  Have fun at US Cellular this summer.

And I looked it up--the '01 Cubs had 14 games decided by 5 or more runs by Game 55 (and none of the first 15 games of the year..the first 4 were 1-run games that year in fact). 

Au contraire: I'm trying very hard not to doom the Cubs by jinxing them with joyful positive.  If only one or two other people around here would take a similarly conservative approach to their rooting, eh?

Well I thought you were just thinking Eli was away and tried to inject some objectivity into this.  I agree that someone's gotta be that voice.

[R-V]

Fun with projecting: it's quite possible Rizzo and Bryant could both be 6 fWAR players this year. There have only been two sets of Cub teammates in the last 70 years to both put up 6+ fWAR:

Santo & Williams in 1965
Hack & Cavarretta in 1945

If we up the threshold to a still-attainable 7 fWAR, only 27 total seasons of 7+ over that 70 year period:

Santo had 7
Banks had 5
Sandberg had 4
Williams had 3
Sammy had 2
And 6 others (including 2007 Soriano, FYC and 1993 Rick Wilkins, WTF) with one apiece

I'll leave it up to Huey to rule if I've condemned Rizzo & Bryant to imminent death with this massive jinx.

[Chuck to Chuck]

Fun with projecting: it's quite possible Rizzo and Bryant could both be 6 fWAR players this year. There have only been two sets of Cub teammates in the last 70 years to both put up 6+ fWAR:

Santo & Williams in 1965
Hack & Cavarretta in 1945

If we up the threshold to a still-attainable 7 fWAR, only 27 total seasons of 7+ over that 70 year period:

Santo had 7
Banks had 5
Sandberg had 4
Williams had 3
Sammy had 2
And 6 others (including 2007 Soriano, FYC and 1993 Rick Wilkins, WTF) with one apiece

I'll leave it up to Huey to rule if I've condemned Rizzo & Bryant to imminent death with this massive jinx.

Nice to know Soriano is in the class of Rick Wilkens. But, hey. Seems right to me.

[Tonker]

Fun with projecting: it's quite possible Rizzo and Bryant could both be 6 fWAR players this year. There have only been two sets of Cub teammates in the last 70 years to both put up 6+ fWAR:

Santo & Williams in 1965
Hack & Cavarretta in 1945

If we up the threshold to a still-attainable 7 fWAR, only 27 total seasons of 7+ over that 70 year period:

Santo had 7
Banks had 5
Sandberg had 4
Williams had 3
Sammy had 2
And 6 others (including 2007 Soriano, FYC and 1993 Rick Wilkins, WTF) with one apiece

I'll leave it up to Huey to rule if I've condemned Rizzo & Bryant to imminent death with this massive jinx.

If I'd had to guess, I'd have gone for the Mick and One Dog in '98.

[R-V]

Fun with projecting: it's quite possible Rizzo and Bryant could both be 6 fWAR players this year. There have only been two sets of Cub teammates in the last 70 years to both put up 6+ fWAR:

Santo & Williams in 1965
Hack & Cavarretta in 1945

If we up the threshold to a still-attainable 7 fWAR, only 27 total seasons of 7+ over that 70 year period:

Santo had 7
Banks had 5
Sandberg had 4
Williams had 3
Sammy had 2
And 6 others (including 2007 Soriano, FYC and 1993 Rick Wilkins, WTF) with one apiece

I'll leave it up to Huey to rule if I've condemned Rizzo & Bryant to imminent death with this massive jinx.

If I'd had to guess, I'd have gone for the Mick and One Dog in '98.

I should add this is position players only - add in pitchers and Maddux & Sandberg in '92 would be a more recent example.

[World's #1 Astros Fan]

Rafael Soriano. A Cub*.

*Soon..or never

[Saul Goodman]

Lots of hard contact against Lester today, who's now been smacked around in two straight starts.

[Eli]

*taps mic*

*clears throat*

There's a lot of talk of adding bullpen arms and another starter, but why is no one talking about the offense? Or is that happening and I've missed it? Here's their MLB ranks:

Runs: 23rd
OPS: 17th
oWAR: 20th
wRC+: 23rd

These are actually worse than I thought. I figured their production was roughly average or a bit better. Guess not. And on the non-numbers side of things, my gut feeling on anyone besides Bryant and Rizzo is pretty meh. Obviously they can't have a lineup of just Rizzos and Bryants. But maybe they should consider calling up the organization's likely-third-best hitter and getting him in the lineup?

Maybe it's just that left field seems like the only place where they could make an improvement, so there's just not much to discuss.